Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20449596›Full record

SynthesisZeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie2010

[Nursing concepts for patients with dementia. Systematic review].

M Nocon, S Roll, C Schwarzbach, C Vauth, W Greiner, S N Willich

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

M NoconInstitut für Sozialmedizin, Epidemiologie und Gesundheitsökonomie, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland. marc.nocon@charite.de
S Roll
C Schwarzbach
C Vauth
W Greiner
S N Willich
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DELeibniz University Hannover · DEBielefeld University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundToday there are approximately one million people with dementia in Germany. Because most forms of dementia cannot be cured the focus of treatment is to provide adequate care, aiming at the maintenance of cognitive functioning, the ability to perform everyday tasks and quality of life. Important approaches for dementia care are multisensory stimulation, validation, reality orientation and reminiscence therapy. However, the efficacy of these approaches is unclear.

methodsA systematic review of the literature was performed. We included randomised controlled trials with at least 30 participants on the efficacy of multi-sensory stimulation, validation, reality orientation and reminiscence therapy for dementia. No restrictions were defined with regard to the endpoints under investigation.

resultsA total of 14 studies with 1,513 patients could be included of which 5 studies assessed reminiscence therapy, 4 multi-sensory stimulation, 3 validation and 2 reality orientation. The studies analysed cognitive functioning, behavioural outcomes, psychological symptoms and quality of life. Most studies did not find significant differences between the intervention and the control group.

conclusionThe studies conducted to date provide only little evidence for the efficacy of the approaches for dementia care considered in this review. However, only few methodologically robust studies could be identified for this review which highlights the need for more interventional studies.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overDementiaFemaleGeriatric NursingHumansMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CareTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID20449596
OpenAlexW1891332930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.